President Biden has begun to accuse stores of overcharging shoppers, as food costs remain a burden for consumers and a political problem for the president.
"The first modern stock trading market was created in Amsterdam when the Dutch East India Company was the first publicly traded company. To raise capital, the company decided to sell stock and pay dividends of the shares to investors. Then in 1611, the Amsterdam stock exchange was created. For many years, the only trading activity on the exchange was trading shares of the Dutch East India Company.
At this point, other countries began creating similar companies, and buying shares of stock was popular for investors. The excitement blinded most investors and they bought into any company that began available without investigating the organization. This resulted in financial instability, and eventually in 1720, investors became fearful and tried to sell all their shares in a hurry. No one was buying however, so the market crashed.
. . .
Although the first stock market began in Amsterdam in 1611, the U.S. didn’t get into the stock market game until the late 1700s. It was then that a small group of merchants made the Buttonwood Tree Agreement. This group of men met daily to buy and sell stocks and bonds, which became the origin of what we know today as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
Although the Buttonwood traders are considered the inventors of the largest stock exchange in America, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange was America’s first stock exchange. Founded in 1790, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange had a profound impact on the city’s place in the global economy, including helping spur the development of the U.S.’s financial sectors and its expansion west."
I don’t know if my highschool education is failing me, but the US declared independence in 1776, so I feel like the US not having a stock market until the late 1700s makes a lot of sense.
That’s not the interesting part. The interesting part is that the Dutch East India Company was under a legal charter where they could make war with and enslave whoever they wanted to as a quasi-independent entity.
That’s what the stock market concept is based upon. Slavery and murder.
I mean, that’s a bit unfair. The stock market is a concept that’s based on expected annual growth paid out in a steady return on investment. Slavery and murder just happen to be incredibly lucrative industries, such that you could confidently invest in firms like Dutch East India and expect more than you put in.
Pick up a copy of Picketty’s “Capitalism In the 21st Century” and you can see how this played out over the long term. Prior to Capitalist market mechanics, you’d have these feudal estates that would levy rents with a steady-state expectation of returns. You had 10,000 acres being worked by 100 farmers and they tithed you their surplus in food. You warehoused that food and traded it back to them for their labor, with which you built churches and castles and recruited soldiers for your next war. But the real economy was stagnant, outside fluctuations in population from plague or invasion or natural disaster.
Then you get this idea of cumulative return on investment, and there’s this sudden rapid expansion of commerce and capital that simply had no historical parallel. This didn’t need to be predicated on bloodshed or occupation. The textile industry boom in the UK, for instance, was this more-or-less bloodless conflagration of productive forces. Huge industrial looms turned a desperately scare resource into a cheap consumer commodity within a span of a few decades. And a big part of that was the feedback loop of investment -> capital production -> lucrative returns -> re-investment.
Similarly, the boom in agricultural productivity thanks to the advent of modern fertilizers has functionally ended natural famines. This was, incidentally, a knock on effect of the Loom Boom, as the first industrial fertilizers were derived from pesticides which were derived from clothing dyes.
The pain and suffering that followed the Dutch East India Company was not a consequence of the market mechanic nearly so much as it was the consequence of an aristocracy with no countervailing force among the proles. It was consistent with the behavior of lords and kings going back thousands of years, just industrialized.
Well, when you consider that humans go back 300,000 years or so, and “civilization”, such as it is, goes back 10,000 - 12,000 years, 500 years is really not much at all.
You should absolutely not abolish the stock market because it’s the single way most average people have to becoming wealthy. What you should do is change how it operates. Here’s a novel idea I’ve had for a long time.
Make more and more companies worker co-ops going forward by incentivizing them the attacks credits and local government health in getting them started. Preserve 75% of the company for the people who actually work there which is what makes it a worker’s co-op.
Reserve 25% of the company for speculation on Wall Street and to raise capital if they need to.
This way you can have sort of a socialist economy that avoids abuses and a stock market at the same time that provides liquidity and efficiency.
abolish the stock market. put these hogs on a fucking island with no natural resources but sand and salt water. set up a camera and let us watch.
It’s interesting how recent the stock market really is:
https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/history-of-the-stock-market/
"The first modern stock trading market was created in Amsterdam when the Dutch East India Company was the first publicly traded company. To raise capital, the company decided to sell stock and pay dividends of the shares to investors. Then in 1611, the Amsterdam stock exchange was created. For many years, the only trading activity on the exchange was trading shares of the Dutch East India Company.
At this point, other countries began creating similar companies, and buying shares of stock was popular for investors. The excitement blinded most investors and they bought into any company that began available without investigating the organization. This resulted in financial instability, and eventually in 1720, investors became fearful and tried to sell all their shares in a hurry. No one was buying however, so the market crashed.
. . .
Although the first stock market began in Amsterdam in 1611, the U.S. didn’t get into the stock market game until the late 1700s. It was then that a small group of merchants made the Buttonwood Tree Agreement. This group of men met daily to buy and sell stocks and bonds, which became the origin of what we know today as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
Although the Buttonwood traders are considered the inventors of the largest stock exchange in America, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange was America’s first stock exchange. Founded in 1790, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange had a profound impact on the city’s place in the global economy, including helping spur the development of the U.S.’s financial sectors and its expansion west."
I don’t know if my highschool education is failing me, but the US declared independence in 1776, so I feel like the US not having a stock market until the late 1700s makes a lot of sense.
That’s not the interesting part. The interesting part is that the Dutch East India Company was under a legal charter where they could make war with and enslave whoever they wanted to as a quasi-independent entity.
That’s what the stock market concept is based upon. Slavery and murder.
That’s what anything is based upon. Murder and the threat of it.*
I mean, that’s a bit unfair. The stock market is a concept that’s based on expected annual growth paid out in a steady return on investment. Slavery and murder just happen to be incredibly lucrative industries, such that you could confidently invest in firms like Dutch East India and expect more than you put in.
Pick up a copy of Picketty’s “Capitalism In the 21st Century” and you can see how this played out over the long term. Prior to Capitalist market mechanics, you’d have these feudal estates that would levy rents with a steady-state expectation of returns. You had 10,000 acres being worked by 100 farmers and they tithed you their surplus in food. You warehoused that food and traded it back to them for their labor, with which you built churches and castles and recruited soldiers for your next war. But the real economy was stagnant, outside fluctuations in population from plague or invasion or natural disaster.
Then you get this idea of cumulative return on investment, and there’s this sudden rapid expansion of commerce and capital that simply had no historical parallel. This didn’t need to be predicated on bloodshed or occupation. The textile industry boom in the UK, for instance, was this more-or-less bloodless conflagration of productive forces. Huge industrial looms turned a desperately scare resource into a cheap consumer commodity within a span of a few decades. And a big part of that was the feedback loop of investment -> capital production -> lucrative returns -> re-investment.
Similarly, the boom in agricultural productivity thanks to the advent of modern fertilizers has functionally ended natural famines. This was, incidentally, a knock on effect of the Loom Boom, as the first industrial fertilizers were derived from pesticides which were derived from clothing dyes.
The pain and suffering that followed the Dutch East India Company was not a consequence of the market mechanic nearly so much as it was the consequence of an aristocracy with no countervailing force among the proles. It was consistent with the behavior of lords and kings going back thousands of years, just industrialized.
Old enough to be the “tradition” of the united states of america, and thus never be legally challenged by the SC.
How old are you that 500 years is still recent?
Well, when you consider that humans go back 300,000 years or so, and “civilization”, such as it is, goes back 10,000 - 12,000 years, 500 years is really not much at all.
Anything in relation to humans can be called recent if you’re playing in those timelines.
The problem is that a bunch of the hogs are our retirement funds.
We need to remove the middle-men from the equation and institute guaranteed basic income before we can change it.
It did serve a purpose. But like all money and corporation things we’ve let the wealthy run away with it.
You should absolutely not abolish the stock market because it’s the single way most average people have to becoming wealthy. What you should do is change how it operates. Here’s a novel idea I’ve had for a long time.
Make more and more companies worker co-ops going forward by incentivizing them the attacks credits and local government health in getting them started. Preserve 75% of the company for the people who actually work there which is what makes it a worker’s co-op.
Reserve 25% of the company for speculation on Wall Street and to raise capital if they need to.
This way you can have sort of a socialist economy that avoids abuses and a stock market at the same time that provides liquidity and efficiency.